►
From YouTube: 3/23/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
I
will
call
this
meeting
to
order
of
the
nevada
senate
judiciary
committee
on
march
23rd
of
2021.
They
replete
sorry,
will
the
extreme
secretary.
Please
take
the
role.
A
A
And
I
am
here:
we
are
also
joined
today
by
mr
pat
geinin
from
the
lcb,
our
fantastic
committee
analyst.
As
always,
nick
anthony
our
community
council
remains
available
to
us
to
answer
legal
questions.
A
D
D
I'm
just
going
to
give
a
very
brief
overview
of
what
the
bill
does
and
then
I
will
hand
it
off
to
the
capable
hands
of
eric
jimenez
and
our
straight
state,
treasurer
zach,
conine
and
then
following
them.
I
will
ask
tim
houghton
berry
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
what
this
bill
means
for
the
lgbtq
business
community
in
nevada.
D
So
briefly,
starting
with
section
six
of
the
bill,
because
I
think
this
is
the
croc
section.
Six
of
the
bill
includes
a
person
who
identifies
as
lesbian,
gay,
bisexual
pansexual,
transgender,
transsexual,
queer,
intersex,
energetic,
intergender
or
asexual,
or
any
other
non-heterosexual
or
non-cisgender
orientation,
or
gender
identity
or
expression
in
the
definitive
definition
of
disadvantaged
persons.
D
Put
most
simply,
we
are
expanding
our
idea
of
what
it
means
to
be
a
disadvantaged
business
in
the
state
and
attempting
to
acknowledge
that
we
need
to
have
diversity
in
all
industries
and
provide
all
of
the
resources
we
provide
for
our
other
minority-owned
veteran-owned
and
similar
businesses
to
these
set
of
disadvantaged
businesses
as
well.
E
Thank
you
senator
and
thank
you
chair
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
zach
conan
and
I
have
the
privilege
of
being
your
nevada
state
treasurer.
Throughout
the
past
year,
small
businesses
across
nevada's
communities
have
struggled
business
owners
have
been
forced
to
make
tough
choices
as
they've
navigated,
trying
to
pay
their
bills
and
their
employees.
E
In
the
midst
of
one
of
the
worst
economic
downturns,
we've
ever
seen,
thankfully,
through
much
needed
aid
from
the
federal
government
through
the
leadership
of
governor
sislek
and
this
legislature,
vital
assistance
programs
like
the
pandemic
emergency
technical
support
grant
program
have
ensured
that
disadvantaged
businesses
have
been
able
to
keep
their
doors
open.
Broadly
speaking,
senate
bill
237
is
seeking
to
broaden
that
definition
of
the
term
disadvantaged
business
to
be
more
inclusive
in
nevada's
lgbtq
community.
E
By
making
a
simple
change,
we
can
ensure
that
lgbtq
businesses
can
access
the
same
type
of
assistance
and
loan
programs
afforded
to
minority
owned
women-owned
and
veteran-owned
businesses
as
we
work
through
nevada's
economic
recovery.
We're
going
to
need
to
make
sure
that
all
of
nevada's
small
businesses
have
the
resources
they
need
by
elevating
the
voices
of
our
lgbtq
business
community
we
can
work
collaboratively,
create
a
state
that
is
more
inclusive
and
prosperous
for
all
nevadans.
I
want
to
thank
xander
harris
for
leadership
on
this
issue
and
we'll
turn
it
over
to
our
senior
deputy
treasurer.
E
F
Thank
you,
mr
treasurer,
and
chair
scheible
for
the
record
eric
commanders
with
the
treasurer's
office.
This
bill
kind
of
came
to
fruition,
as
we
were
administering
the
pets
grant
about
midway
through
the
process.
When
we
had
gotten
through
about
30
or
40
million
dollars
in
approved
applications,
we
realized
that
we
were
using
the
definition
of
disadvantaged
business
to
prioritize
businesses
who
needed
a
little
bit
of
extra
help
during
the
pandemic,
so
we
could
fund
those
applications
first
and
in
one
of
the
deficiencies
of
the
law.
F
After
talking
with
senator
harris,
we
realized
that
there
was
no
way
for
us
to
identify
which
of
those
businesses
were
from
the
lgbtq
community.
So
we
figured
a
simple
change
and
conforming
language
in
all
of
the
statutes
where
lgbtq
businesses
are
listed
would
ensure
that
you
know
whether
we're
providing
information
on
assistance
or
grants
or
loans,
or
if
there
is
additional
aid
from
the
federal
government
that
goes
to
support
small
businesses
in
our
community.
F
We
can
make
sure
that
those
lgbtq
businesses
are
included
and
get
the
help
they
need,
and
I
think
it's
incredibly
important
and
I
think,
with
the
passage
of
sjr
8
right
now
on
the
senate
floor
that
we,
you
know,
we
know
that
we
need
to
make
sure
this
population
feels
included,
particularly
members
of
the
trans
community.
I
think
it's
important
that
they
hear
from
their
government
that
they
are
heard
and
seen
and
they
should
be
able
to
start
a
business
and
flourish
just
like
everyone
else.
So
that's
it.
F
Madam
chair,
I
know
the
gay
and
lesbian
chamber
of
nevada
is
here
to
provide
some
some
on
the
ground
experience.
But
if
you
have
any
questions,
we're
happy
to
take
it.
A
Thank
you.
First,
let
the
record
reflect
that
senators
cannizzaro
and
pickard
have
joined
us
and
mr
hugginberry
are
you
from
the
gay
and
lesbian
chamber.
F
I
am
thank
you:
it's
pronounced
tim
hanberry,
silent,
gh
like
in
might,
and
I'm
the
president
of
the
gay
and
lesbian
chamber
of
commerce
of
nevada.
Thank
you
for
having
me
here,
so
I
guess
I'll
just
jump
right
into
it.
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
considering
this
as
part
of
bill
237.
It
is
actually
extremely
important
to
the
gay
and
lesbian
community.
F
They
all
got
hit
really
hard
and
they're
still
hit
very
hard,
and
although
ppp
helped
loans
like
this
or
programs
like
this
are
extremely
beneficial.
We've
grown
from
over
30
members
in
the
last
two
years
to
I'm
sorry
to
over
110
members
from
30
in
the
last
two
years
and
just
on
the
the
reno
sparks
area
18
in
the
last
three
months.
So
the
growth
is
important.
F
A
G
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
question
I
have
obviously,
with
women
or
veterans.
It's
you
can
identify
them
pretty
easily.
A
white
male
like
myself.
If
I
read
this
correctly,
could
simply
identify
myself
as
perhaps
bisexual
or
asexual,
and
I
would
qualify
under
this.
I
mean
what,
where
is
the
standard
of
proof
to
show
you
actually
are
bisexual
heterosexual,
homosexual?
Whatever?
F
So
senator
thank
you.
I
can
prove
it
actually.
It's
actually
for
certified
companies
so
to
become
a
certified
lgbtq
business.
You
have
to
be
certified
by
the
national,
which
is
in
over
five
countries
and
they
come
out
and
they
interview
you
independently
to
prove
that
you're,
an
lgbtq
owned
business
in
the
state
of
nevada,
so.
G
D
And
if
I,
if
I
may
sandra
hansen,
I
I
I
hear
this
question
a
lot
and
the
truth
is
no
one
is
out
there
masquerading
as
a
disadvantaged
person
in
order
to
gain
some
perceived
advantage,
so
the
issues
that
you're
raising
in
practice
do
not
actually
arise
and
by
the
way,
a
small
business
enterprise
already
has
a
a
a
a
certification
for
lgbtq
owned
businesses.
D
So
I
I
hear
you
I
know
the
state
can
deal
with
this.
This
is
actually
not
a
a
legitimate.
In
my
estimation,
concern.
G
Well,
I
thank
you
for
that,
but,
however,
I
would
point
out
that
if,
in
fact
at
some
point,
this
becomes
a
significantly
advantageous
thing
for
business
people
to
take
advantage
of,
for
example,
I
would
give
an
example
when,
when
nevada
started,
to
encourage
women-owned
businesses
to
have
priority
in
business
and
bidding,
in
fact,
a
tremendous
number
of
businesses
in
nevada
shifted
to
female
ownership
to
take
advantage
of
these
kinds
of
programs.
G
So
while
it
is
true
that
currently
that
may
not
be
the
case
that
doesn't
mean
that
down
the
road,
you
will
not
have
people
essentially
claiming
to
be
members
of
a
community
that
perhaps
in
their
actual
physical
practices,
are
not.
But
again
I
don't
see
how
you
can
possibly
come
up
with
a
standard
to
prove
that,
and-
and
I
don't
want
to
get
into
the
details
too
much,
but
I
again
this
seems
to
go
way
too
far
with
way
too
broad
definitions
for
people
to
fit
into
the
category.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
H
Thank
you,
chair
shy.
Well,
I
am
that
that
actually
senator
hansen's
question
raises
or
raised
a
question,
because
if
the
representation
is
that
these
have
to
be
certified
lgbtq
businesses,
I
don't
see
that
in
the
bill.
Can
one
of
you
point
me
to
because
it
might
be
in
one
of
the
cfr?
H
H
D
And
senator
pickard
I'll
just
note,
let's
just
in
general,
stick
to
statutory
practice
right.
If
you
look
at
the
bill,
it
doesn't
outline
how
women
own
businesses
have
to
prove
that
they're
women,
or
how
a
veteran-owned
business
has
to
prove
that
they're
a
veteran,
and
so
I
am
fully
confident
that
these
issues
can
be
shaken
out
in
the
in
in
practice.
D
We
we
have
the
treasurer's
office
on
on
as
well,
and
so
there
there
are
verification
systems
in
place
for
all
of
these
categories,
and
I
imagine
there
would
be
some
similar
verification
process
as
well,
but
that
is
not
in
the
bill,
nor
is
it
for
any
other
category.
Probably,
nor
should
it
be.
H
Well-
and
I
appreciate
that-
I
just
I
guess
I
don't
with
those
others-
there
are
regulations
that
set
forth
the
standard,
for
example,
veterans
own.
You
have
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
you're
a
veteran.
We
had
to
do
that
in
the
federal
contracting
work
that
I
had
done.
I
had
to
gather
that
information
and
submit
it
are
in
place,
and
I
don't
I
just
I
don't
see
where
in
the
bill
that's
required
anyway.
My
question
had
to
do
with.
D
H
The
application
process,
the
licensing,
the
the
recognition
of
this
as
a
a
new
additional
program
or
or
classification.
H
My
guess
is
that
this
would
be
included
in
the
government
set
aside
for
construction
projects
and
the
like,
where
there
are
quotas
or
requirements
for
a
certain
level
of
of
say,
minority
business,
so,
for
example,
on
the
the
federal
construction
side,
there's
a
minimum
requirement
for
a
certain
level
of
minority-owned
businesses
or
women-owned
businesses.
So
I
would
assume
that
this
is
now
included
in
that
set
aside
for
the
now
women
owned
veteran
owned
or
now
lgbtq-owned
businesses.
They
have
to
have
a
certain
percentage
of
the
subcontracted
work.
D
Requirements
so
senator
picker
to
you
through
through
chair
schaible.
It
is
my
interpretation
of
the
bill
that
ndot,
the
nevada
department
of
transportation
would
have
to
establish
goals
for
the
participation
of
these
businesses.
D
How
ndot
decides
to
do
that
will
remain
the
same
as
they've
done
for
the
program
in
in
the
past,
and
so
I
don't,
unfortunately,
have
anyone
from
the
department
of
transportation
on
to
maybe
walk
you
through
how
they
would
implement
the
bill.
But
I'm
happy
to
get
someone
to
circle
back
with
you
about
that.
If
you'd
like.
H
No,
I
think
you
just
answered
the
question.
I
appreciate
that
because
the
answer
is
yes:
if
this
is
now
one
of
those
groups
that
they
would
have
to
treat
them
or
treat
this
new
group
the
same
way,
they
do
the
others.
And
then,
when
we're
talking
about
the
the
treasurer's
involvement,
we're
talking
about
programs
for
grants
and
and
loans
and
that
sort
of
thing
for
them
correct.
E
There's
treasurer
conan
for
the
record,
so
the
intention
is
to
include
that
group
within
the
disadvantaged
business
entities
that
we
prioritized
for
funding
say
through
the
pets
grant
right,
but
much
like
the
pets
grant
or
other
future
grants.
There's
certainly
no
plans
to
do
set-aside
buckets
for
specific
groups
simply
to
make
sure
that
as
we're
prioritizing
that
we're
taking
systemic
and
historical
and
current
barriers
to
capital
barriers
to
success
into
effect.
A
I
see
your
hand
senator
hansen.
Today,
however,
we
have
two
more
bills
to
get
through
you
and
I
both
have
natural
resources
at
3
30,
so
we're
not
going
to
do
second
bites
at
the
apple,
but
I
encourage
you
to
follow
up
offline
with
senator
harris.
I
I
I
J
Hello,
my
name
is
andre
wade,
a-n-d-r-e
w-a-d-e
and
I'm
state
director
for
silver
state
equality,
a
statewide,
lgbtq
plus
civil
rights
organization
here
in
nevada.
I
thank
you
cheri
schreibel
vice
chair
canozzaro.
If
you
are
there
and
members
of
the
committee,
we
are
in
full
support
of
this
bill.
J
Disparities
are
across
the
board
for
the
lgbtq
community,
not
just
in
health
outcomes,
but
also
in
business
as
outlined
earlier,
and
so
what
this
bill
does
just
wants,
folks
to
be
included
in
programs
that
already
exist
by
creating
equity,
we're
not
creating
a
new
class
of
people,
we're
not
creating
a
situation
where
this
particular
community
is
going
to
have
an
advantage
if
anything,
they're
going
to
be
slightly
equal
footing
with
these
efforts,
and
so
thank
you
all
for
bringing
forth
this
bill
to
bring
inclusion
for
lgbtq
folks
who
are
business
owners
here
in
nevada.
I
I
K
K
I
I
I
B
A-L-E-X-I-S-M-O-T-A-R-E-X
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors
representing
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada,
we
are
here
today
in
opposition
to
sb237,
primarily
sections
three
and
four.
While
we
appreciate
and
understand
what
the
sponsors
are
trying
to
accomplish,
we
do
have
some
concerns.
B
The
federal
highway
administration,
which
provides
a
significant
amount
of
revenue
for
our
highway
fund,
largely
sets
the
dbe
participation
goals
in
nevada,
and
it
does
not
recognize
lgbtq
when
setting
those
goals.
Lgbtq
business
owners
are
currently
eligible
for
the
small
business
enterprise
certification,
which
provides
race
and
gender
neutral
businesses.
B
Business
goals
on
both
state
and
federal
projects
that
did
not
have
db
eagles
ndot
currently
has
several
of
these
contracts.
And,
lastly,
we
share
the
concerns
about
what
safeguards
would
be
in
place
to
prevent
fraud
with
no
way
to
prove
sexual
identity.
Unscrupulous
people
could
be
incentivized
to
state
they
identify
as
lbg
lgbtq
in
order
to
take
advantage
of
the
programs
offered
under
these
classifications.
B
I
A
D
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
continue
to
assess
the
state
of
our
citizenry,
what
we
can
do
to
help
businesses
across
the
state,
especially
coming
out
of
the
pandemic,
and
I
am
a
hundred
percent
sure
that
this
bill
will
make
the
world
a
little
bit
better
one
little
pets
grant
at
a
time.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
L
L
L
We
all
remember
the
news
stories
of
the
usa
gymnastics
team
doctor
who
abused
the
children
in
his
care
for
many
years
at
his
trial,
former
gymnasts
many
in
their
30s,
reported
about
the
abuse
20
years
later
and
more
after
it
had
occurred
according
to
the
national
center
for
victims
of
crime,
nearly
every
state
has
a
basic
suspension
of
the
statute
of
limitation
for
civil
actions,
while
a
person
is
a
minor.
Many
states
have
also
adopted
additional
extension
specifically
for
cases
involving
sexual
abuse
of
children.
L
Extensions
for
filing
civil
actions
for
child
sexual
abuse
have
most
often
based
be
been
based
upon
the
discovery
rule
by
the
time
the
victim
discovers
the
sexual
abuse
or
the
relationship
of
the
conduct
of
the
injuries.
The
ordinary
time
limitation
may
have
expired,
as
I
noted
before.
This
delayed
discovery
may
be
due
to
emotional
and
psychological
trauma
and
is
often
accompanied
by
repression
of
the
memory
of
the
abuse.
L
In
2017,
we
raised
the
statute
of
limitations
for
these
types
of
civil
actions
from
10
years
to
the
current
limit
of
20
years
senate
bill
203
removes
that
limit
altogether.
This
is
critical
in
achieving
justice
for
survivors
in
civil
suits,
because
it
is
a
powerful
tour
tool
for
deterring
the
bad
actors.
L
At
this
point,
I
would
like
to
walk
you
through
senate
bill
203,
just
highlighting
the
major
provisions.
Section.
1
changes,
the
statute
of
limitations
for
filing
a
lawsuit
to
recover
damages
arising
out
of
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
committed
against
a
minor,
including
injuries
suffered
by
a
victim
of
pornography
involving
minors.
This
bill
removes
the
existing
20-year
limit
and
specifies
that
the
action
may
be
started
at
any
time
after
18
years
of
age.
L
L
Second,
the
person
other
than
a
convicted
abuser
is
liable
for
damages
if
that
person
had
any
employment
relationship
or
responsibility
for
the
abuser.
If
that
individual
owned
the
property
where
the
abuse
took
place,
if
they
knew
or
should
have
known,
the
abuse
or
exploitation
was
taking
place
or
if
they
allowed
it
to
occur.
Finally,
section
two
provides
additional
damages
for
a
person
who
is
liable
to
the
plaintiff
other
than
the
person
convicted
of
the
crime.
If
that
person
gained
a
benefit
or
covered
up
the
abuse
or
exploitation,
the
person
is
liable
for
trouble
damages.
L
The
next
provision
is
contained
in
section
4..
The
section
states
that
the
changes
made
in
2000
in
senate
bill
23203
allow
the
liability
for
recovery
of
damages
to
apply
retroactively
to
incidents
of
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation,
or
to
any
act
involving
pornography
and
a
minor,
even
if
the
statute
of
limitations
had
expired
under
previous
law.
In
effect,
it
restores
the
ability
of
a
plaintiff
to
take
civil
action
that
was
previously
barred
by
a
20-year
limit.
L
L
Finally,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
we
do
not
have
a
statute
of
limitations
for
homicides.
These
crimes
are
a
form
of
murder
against
a
minor
since
they
kill
their
innocence
and
destroy
the
life
of
that
child.
Removing
the
statute
of
limitations
for
civil
actions
involving
these
crimes
may
provide
survivors
with
some
small
measure
of
closure.
L
This
concludes
my
remarks,
chair
triagle
and
committee,
and
I
would
like
to
invite
allison
brazier
and
robert
eglet
to
add
to
my
remarks.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
C
I'm
also
here
with
mr
eglet
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
members
might
have
for
us.
The
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
stop
human
trafficking,
sex
abuse
and
exploitation
of
children
in
nevada,
and
before
I
go
into
the
details
of
the
bill,
I
just
want
to
give
the
committee
members
some
numbers
and
statistics
that
to
show
you
the
scope
of
what's
happening
here.
C
According
to
the
national
human
trafficking
hotline,
which
collects
those
reports
of
human
trafficking
and
abuse
between
2007
and
2016,
there
were
over
1600
calls
just
in
nevada
to
report
suspected
cases
of
human
trafficking
of
those
calls
in
las
vegas.
Almost
500
cases
were
actually
opened.
That
puts
us
number
six
in
the
nation
and
then
reno
51
cases
were
actually
open,
which
puts
reno
at
number
64
in
the
nation.
C
So
when
you
look
at
those
numbers
together,
we
were
averaging
a
little
bit
more
than
one
case
per
week.
That
was
actually
opened
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
we
know
that
those
numbers
are
low
because
of
the
under
reporting
of
these
crimes.
So
you
know
one
victim
of
child.
Sex
trafficking
is
too
much
but
having
one
case
per
week
opened
on
average
during
a
span
of
nine
years,
I
think
should
be
shocking
and
concerning
to
all
of
us
and
that's
what
one
of
the
problems
that
this
bill
tries
to
address.
C
C
C
And
while
we
know
that
there
are
criminal
punishments
available
to
these
individuals
arresting
one
pimp
or
one
trafficker,
one
abuser
at
a
time
isn't
going
to
get
to
the
heart
of
the
problem.
Through
this
bill,
we
feel
we
need
to
financially
punish
these
bad
actors.
These
businesses,
who
allow
crimes
against
children
to
occur
by
putting
a
financial
financial
connection
to
this
type
of
behavior.
C
We
believe
it
will
incentivize
businesses
to
train
their
employees
to
be
the
first
line
of
defense
against
spotting,
this
type
of
sex
trafficking
and
exploitation
of
children,
because
many
times
they're
in
the
best
position
to
identify
and
to
stop
this
behavior
from
happening
this
criminal
activity.
C
Section
two
of
the
bill
clearly
spells
out
that
there
are
four
factors
that
need
to
be
met
before
a
business
or
other
individual.
Can
be
held
liable
so
first
they
must
a
person
or
business
can
be
liable
if
they
employ
supervise
or
have
the
responsibility
for
the
person
convicted
of
the
crime
two
they
have
to
have
owned
or
controlled
the
property
upon
which
the
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
occurred.
C
Three
they
have
to
have
knew
or
should
have
known
of
the
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
by
the
person
convicted
of
the
crime
and
four
allow
the
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
to
occur.
So
there
are
four
factors
that
have
to
be
met
before
a
business
or
another
individual
can
be
opened
up
to
civil
liability.
C
The
second
intention
of
the
bill
is
to
give
these
child
victims
time
to
process.
What's
happened
to
them
and
have
find
the
courage
and
the
strength,
and
usually
probably
the
the
support
from
members
of
the
community
or
or
family
members
to
come
forward
and
be
brave
enough
to
bring
this
suit.
Unfortunately,
we're
all
too
familiar
with
these.
These
highly
publicized
incidents,
like
senator
dondera
luke,
mentioned
with
larry
nasser
and
usa
gymnastics
with
jerry
sandusky
at
penn
state.
C
It
often
takes
victims
of
sexual
abuse,
many
years
or
decades
before
they
feel
comfortable
and
have
the
support
to
come
forward
and
there's
a
plethora
of
reasons.
For
this.
You
know
many
of
the
times
these
victims
of
human
trafficking
or
sexual
abuse
are
groomed
by
their
trafficker
by
their
pimp.
They've
gotten
fear,
instilled
in
them
of
reporting
or
trying
to
escape
they've
been
isolated
from
their
family
members
or
their
friends.
C
So
they
have
no
support
if
they
do
try
to
escape
or
report
they're,
often
times
convinced
by
their
pimp
or
trafficker
abuser
that
they
deserved
it.
And
unfortunately,
a
lot
of
these
young
victims
become
loyal
to
those
abusers
and
they
rely
on
them
for
their
basic
survival.
So
you
know
when
it
comes
down
to
timeline
for
reporting.
C
Every
victim
is
going
to
come
to
well
if
they,
if
they
find
the
strength
in
bravery,
they're
going
to
come
to
it
at
different
points
in
time,
and
we
know
that
this
type
of
abuse
and
trafficking
has
lifelong
effects
on
these
children,
and
so,
if
they're
lucky
enough
to
find
the
courage
and
support
to
come
forward,
it
could
take
years
or
decades
for
that
to
happen,
and
so
section
one
of
the
bill
removes
the
statute
of
limitations
for
these
types
of
civil
claims
to
give
victims
time
to
seek
the
justices
they
deserve.
C
So
in
some
we
believe
the
bill
will
protect
children
in
nevada.
It
targets
not
only
pimps
and
abusers,
but
the
businesses
who
turn
a
blind
eye
to
this
criminal
activity
and
sexual
abuse
and
exploitation
of
our
children.
C
M
Adam
chairman,
this
is
robert
eglet.
Thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
testify
about
this
bill
today.
I
don't
have
much
to
add.
I
think
that
senator
dondero
and
ms
brazier
did
an
excellent
job
of
laying
out
the
facts
about
the
bill.
I
just
want
to
add
a
couple
of
a
couple
of
things,
and
that
is
just
to
echo
the
fact
that
these
children,
when
this
happens
to
them
at
a
young
age,
it
affects
them
dramatically
throughout
their
life.
You
see,
we
have
there's
many
studies
on
this.
M
The
children
fail
in
school,
they
fail
in
work,
they
fell
in
life,
many
of
them
become
drug
abusers
and
just
have
problems
throughout
their
their
lives.
The
other
thing
is:
is
that
25
to
a
third
of
the
victims
never
come
forward
during
their
entire
lives
on
this
and
the
average
victim
who's
had
this
type
of
experience
as
a
child,
they
the
average
time
of
when
they
actually
report.
This
is
not
until
they
are
52
years
old,
so
they
either
either
are
not
able
to
come
forward
with
it.
M
Don't
have
the
strength
to
it
to
do
it
or
they
repress
these
things.
I
do
want
to
clarify
one
thing
when,
when
ms
brazier
mentions
hotels,
I
want
to
be
clear
to
everybody
that
we
do
not.
I
I
have
not
seen,
and
I've
we've
reached.
This
research
is
a
great
new
deal.
We
do
not
believe
this
is
a
problem
on
any
of
the
strip
properties.
M
I'm
not
saying
that
there
may
not
be
some
prostitution
that
that
goes
on
in
some
of
the
rooms
there.
That's
not
the
issue,
but
we're
talking
about
children
with
trial,
child
trafficking
and
there's
no
evidence
that
I've
seen
that
that's
any
sort
of
problem
on
strip
properties,
but
where
it
is
a
problem.
M
Are
these
lower
level
off-strip
properties
where
we
know
the
managers
are
in
on
it,
they're
getting
kickbacks
or
they're,
turning
a
blind
eye
to
allowing
pimps
to
run
these
children
through
these
places
of
business
as
well
as
truck
stops
and
other
other
businesses
like
this
nevada
is
one
of
the
has
one
of
the
worst
problems
in
the
state.
This
is
a
nationwide
problem,
but
nevada
is
clearly
at
the
top
of
some
of
the
problems
across
the
country.
M
With
this
bill,
it
prevents
it
presents
a
huge
deterrent
to
these
businesses
from
stopping
that
activity
or
making
sure
it
doesn't
occur
on
on
their
premises
in
the
future,
and
that
that
is
the
purpose
of
this
bill,
and
I
hope
the
committee
will
consider
that.
Thank
you
and
again
I'll
answer
any
questions.
Anyone
has.
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
I
see
we
already
have
a
couple
of
questions.
Let's
start
with
senator
orrinshaw.
N
N
If
the
proposed
changes
become
law,
do
you
see
perhaps
victims
who
had
been
trafficked
decades
ago
and
maybe
there's
a
situation
where
there
was
a
you
know?
Like
said
a
truck
stop
or
some
other
business
nightclub
that
allowed
this
to
happen
where
maybe
a
prosecutor
might
not
might
not
feel
that
they've
got
what
it
takes
for
a
criminal
case,
but
where
a
civil
action
could
be
successful
and
there'd
be
the
the
outcome
of
trying
to
make
the
victim
whole,
but
also
trying
to
make
sure
that
that
whoever
let
that
happen
doesn't
let
that
occur
again.
N
M
Yes,
robert
eglet,
madam
chairman,
and
thank
you
senator
oran
shaw
for
your
question.
It's
a
very
good
question
and
yes,
I
do,
I
think,
that's
the
case.
As
everybody
knows,
the
burden
of
proof
for
the
prosecutors
is
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt.
M
It's
a
much
higher
burden
and
in
this
statute,
we've
got
both
knowledge
and
constructive
knowledge,
in
other
words,
either
they
knew
or
they
should
have
known,
that
this
activity
was
was
going
on
in
their
business,
and
so
I
do
think
this
provides
an
avenue
conjunct
in
conjunction
with
the
criminal
justice
system,
to
try
to
deter
and
reduce
this
problem
in
our
state
and-
and
so
yes
senator.
I
do
believe
that
that
that
is
a
possibility,
quite
frankly,
a
probability
that
that
will
occur.
A
All
right,
senator
hansen.
G
Thanks
church,
I
actually
have
you
know
six
six
terms.
We
have
talked
about
child
sexual
trafficking
from
my
very
first
section,
every
single
session,
so
I
I
would
love
to
have
somebody
go
back
and
review
the
laws
we
already
have
in
place
and
see
if
they've
been
effective
at
all
in
any
kind
of
reduction.
In
this
horrible
thing,
it
just
seems
to
keep
adding
more
and
more
laws.
G
Now
now
this
law
is
a
little
unique
when
we
talk
about
changing
it
from
when
when
senator
luke
rondera
loop
mentioned,
you
know
the
20-year
thing.
It
was
20
years
on
top
of
18
years
within
a
20-year
window,
and
we
did
that
as
a
compromise,
because
there
is
supposed
to
be
under
in
criminal
law
a
presumption
of
innocence.
G
So
under
civil
law,
though,
we
now
are
changing
the
the
bar
substantially,
and
I'm
glad
mr
eglet
mentioned
that
you
know
because
mr
frazier
mentioned
quote
businesses
that
turn
a
blind
eye
are
the
real
focus
of
this.
It
looks
like
to
me,
and
then
mr
eglin
mentioned
that
the
strip
casinos
are
supposedly
not
the
strip.
Casinos
are
totally
guilty
of
this.
Okay,
I'm
just
going
to
make
that
assumption
and
state
up
say
the
strip
casinos
know
about
prostitution
going
on
on
their
sites.
G
I
can't
say
every
one
of
them,
but
I
know
enough
people
that
work
in
those
casinos
that
will
make
it
very
clear
that
they
are
not
innocent
when
it
comes
to
illegal
prostitution
in
their
units.
So
I
I
guess
my
biggest
issue
with
this
is
by
changing
the
burden
from
a
a
essentially
a
presumption
of
innocence
under
criminal
law,
and
you
have
to
prove
that
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
to
dropping
the
bar
so
substantially.
G
M
Miss
madam
chairman,
robert
eglet,
I
can
answer
senator
hansen's
question
and
thank
you
senator
hanson,
for
the
question
the.
If
the
perpetrator
of
the
actual
act,
the
the
person
who
had
sex
with
the
under
underage
child
is
criminally
convicted.
M
That
criminal
conviction
for
purposes
of
this
statute
is
conclusive
proof
that
the
sexual
abuse
actually
occurred
and
then
in
the
civil
action
the
the
victim
would
have
to
establish
all
four
of
the
conditions:
they're
they're
conjunctive,
not
disjunctive.
M
In
other
words
it's
and
not
or
all
four
of
these
have
to
be
have
to
be
met
and
with
respect
to
d
allowed
it
to
happen
myself
and
miss
brazier
had
a
constructive
meeting
with
members
of
the
lobbyist
for
the
resort
association
yesterday,
where
they
suggested
some
language
that
we
think
is
constructive
and
appropriate.
M
Basically,
it's
it
makes
the
makes
that
section
say
or
that
part
the
d
say
that
they
failed
to
take
steps
to
stop
or
abate
the
sexual
abuse
or
or
exploitation
after
the
person
knew
or
should
have
known
of
the
circumstances
described
in
sections
sub
a
through
c
and
we
believe,
that's
a
construction,
a
constructive
proposal,
and
they
also
made
some
suggestions
about
with
respect
to
the
description
of
the
type
of
people
that
would
have
to
know.
M
There
was
some
discussion
about
senior
management
and
so
we're
both
both
sides
are
going
to
wordsmith
that
issue.
But
yes,
it
is
true
that
that
that
this
would
be
open
for
life
for
these
victims
to
bring
this
action.
But,
as
I
said
most
of
these
victory,
or
at
least
are
the
average.
G
Well
well,
thank
you,
mr
aglet.
I
and
I
certainly
want
to
do
everything
humanly
possible
to
reduce
this
to
zero
and
punish
aggressively
the
people
that
are
the
perpetrators.
G
My
last
my
last
question,
for
you,
sir,
is
if,
if
you
talk
about
something
for
example,
and
it's
in
their
50s
for
acts
that
occurred
at
18,
and
you
find
there
was
a
repetitious
pattern,
is
it
possible
for
you
to
actually
have,
for
example,
a
class-action
lawsuit
against
a
a
strip,
casino
or
some
other
type
of
business?
That
may
have
may
have
been
involved
in
this
type
of
stuff,
whether
directly
or
indirectly,.
M
I'm,
madam
chairman,
robert
eglet,
thank
you
senator
hansen.
I
know,
as
you
may
or
may
not
know,
senator
I
do
quite
a
bit
of
class
action
work,
so
I'm
very
familiar
with
that
work
and
you
have
to
have
typicality
and
commonality
and
the
damages
have
to
be
very
similar
and
it
has
to
really
arise
out
of
the
same
event,
the
same
conduct
within
a
limited
period
period
of
time.
M
A
Absolutely
go
ahead:
senator
pinkert.
H
H
You
know
we've
got
a
fairly
detailed
definition
of
sexual
contact
and-
and
I
I
was
looking
through
some
of
the
other
places
that
shows
up
in
the
statutory
scheme-
and
this
is
a
little
bit
different,
it's
broader
than
what
we
typically
see
in
the
criminal
law,
and
so
is
there
any
concern
that,
because
we've
got
a
different
definition,
it
might
create
some
difficulties
in
the
litigation.
M
Process,
madam
chairman,
robert
eglitt,
thank
you
senator
pickering.
I
don't
believe
so.
You
know
that,
as
long
as
the
definition
is
met
under
this
statue,
it
doesn't
have
to
completely
come.
You
know
be
exactly
the
same
as
the
criminal
statutes
and
I
agree
there
are
varying
definitions
or
varying
words
used,
but
it's
defined.
The
definition
is
defined
in
the
statute
here
by
itself
as
to
what
the
sexual
abuse
or
sexual
sexual
exploitation
is.
H
All
right
and-
and
I
appreciate
that
I
just
my
concern-
was
only
that
if
it
might
create
a
defense
where
someone
was
convicted
under
a
different
standard,
now
we're
applying
that
here
and
yet
we're
claiming
it's
conclusive
evidence,
but
that
actually
leads
to
my
next
question,
which
is
about
if
we're
going
after
these
lower
level.
I
think
in
one
of
my
conversations
we
are
trying
to
differ,
define
skanky
hotels,
those
that
really
harbor
and
help
these
perpetrators.
H
It's
I'm
concerned
that
by
the
first
prong
of
the
four-prong
test,
or
the
first
factor
of
the
four
factors
that
have
to
be
met,
we
might
be
excluding
a
number
of
them
in
that
if
they
have
to
be
employed
or
supervised
or
otherwise
having
some
legal
responsibility,
that's
going
to
exclude
a
lot
of
them.
Who
simply
you
know
under
that
wink
week,
not
nod.
Go
ahead.
Do
your
thing
and
give
me
your
kickback
there's
no
responsibility
there.
H
Are
we
defining
in
this
responsibility
to
include
that
wink
weight
nod,
nod
and
facilitating
of
the
behavior?
Is
that
going
to
be
the
standard
for
responsibility
here
or
is
responsibility,
because
I
don't
see
it
defined
anywhere
in
the
build?
My
guess
is,
then
we
it
would
take
the
ordinary
meaning,
which
I
think
would
mean
that
they
have
to
have
some
legal
responsibility
over
the
individual,
which
would
exclude
most
of
these
places.
How
do
we,
how
do
we
reconcile
that.
M
The
legal
responsibility
over
the
under
I'm
sorry,
madam
chairman,
robert
eglet,
senator
pickering,
the
the
legal
responsibility
or
employment
under
the
statute,
is
for
the
person
working
in
the
motel,
let's
say
a
motel
or
managing
the
truck.
Stop
who
knows
about
what's
going
on?
He
knows
that
pimps
are
running
these
children
through
the
through
the
truck
stops
in
the
parking
lots
and
having
putting
them
in
the
cabs
of
the
truck
with
these
truck
drivers.
They
know
it's
occurring.
Some
of
them
are
getting
kickbacks
from
the
pimps.
M
Some
of
them
are
just
getting
more
business
from
the
truckers.
Knowing
about
this,
going
to
this
truck
stop
and
the
same
with
these
hotel,
these
motels,
the
the
manager
or
the
owner,
the
motel
is
getting
more
business
because
the
rooms
are
being
rented,
so
they're
getting
a
benefit
from
this.
It's
not
that
the
pimp
is
employed
by
them.
It's
the
it's,
the
manager
or
the
employee
in
charge
that
that
knew
about
this
and
either
turned
a
blind
eye
or
was
getting
some
benefit
to
it.
H
M
Well,
they're
not
they're,
not
convicted
they're,
not
criminally
convicted
of
I'm
sorry,
madam
chairman,
robert
eglitt
senator
pickering
they're
not
normally
convicted
of
a
crime
and
I'm
not
sure,
there's
a
criminal
statute
on
the
books.
For
that
and
that's
why
this
bill
isn't
so
important
to
help
to
deter
this,
and
we
think,
will
be
significant
deterrence
to
this
type
of
conduct
so
that
owners
of
these
these
businesses
and
and
managers
who
work
in
these
business
know
that
they
will
have.
They
will
be
subject
to
civil
liability
if
they
continue
in
this
type
of
conduct.
H
So
but
under
the
way
sub
a
is
written,
I
don't
see
how
we
because
we
don't
convict
them
now.
This
doesn't
apply
because
that's
one
of
the
necessary
factors.
M
M
H
That's
not
how
I
read-
and
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
legal
to
you-
know
lcb
legal,
to
get
on
the
record
in
support,
but
that's
confusing
to
me
and
I'm
law
trained
and-
and
I
can
only
imagine
what
you
know
what
this
will
do.
So
I
I
think
we
need
to
probably
look
at
that
language.
I
have
a
few
other
questions,
madam
chair,
but
I'll
take
those
offline.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
I
also
have
a
couple
of
questions
and
a
few
things
that
I
want
to
clarify.
I'm
not
sure
ms
brazier,
mr
eglet,
if
one
or
both
of
you
could
clarify
this,
but
I
just
want
to
get
on
the
record
that
this
law
applies
simply
to
civil
actions
and
those
civil
actions
take
place
in
a
completely
separate
lane.
They
are
a
different
proceeding
than
the
criminal
action.
Is
that
a
fair
characterization.
M
Then
the
judgment
and
conviction
of
the
person
convicted
of
the
crime
is
conclusive
evidence
in
civil
action
that
the
person
convicted
of
the
crime,
sexually
abused
or
exploited
the
person
two
a
person
is
liable
to
a
plaintiff
for
damages.
If
the
person,
the
person
there
we're
talking
about
in
the
bill
is
not
the
person
convicted
of
the
tribe
of
the
crime.
It's
the
other
person.
A
Right,
so
let
me
let
me
ask
a
couple
of
follow-up
questions
here
to
see
if
we
can
try
to
get
some
clarity
on
the
record,
because
we
have
these
two
separate
lanes,
a
civil
case
and
the
criminal
case.
But
the
bill
does
reference
the
outcome
of
a
criminal
case.
Is
it
fair
to
say
that
that's
because
they
arise
out
of
the
same
facts.
M
A
Okay,
so
so
there's
some
benefit
as
lawmakers
to
thinking
practically
about
the
fact
that,
when
both
of
these
cases
come
before
two
completely
different
courts
and
completely
different
judges
that
they
will
be
operating
from
some
of
the
same
evidence.
For
example,
the
same
statements,
the
same
videos,
the
same
emails,
the
same
text
messages
might
be
shown
in
one
case,
as
in
the
other,
to
show
that,
for
instance,
sex
trafficking
had
occurred.
Is
that
kind
of
the
reason
for
incorporating
parts
of
the
criminal
statute
or
acknowledging
the
criminal
aspect
of
the
statute?
In.
A
C
Yes,
I
think
that's
a
fair
characterization
of
what
we're
intending
to
do.
We
know
that
you
know
the
gathering
of
evidence,
especially
in
a
police
investigation,
is
going
to
get.
You
know
a
lot
of
what
a
plaintiff
would
need
in
a
civil
case.
It
doesn't
the
way
the
bill
is
written.
You
don't
have
to
have
the
criminal
conviction
to
then
pursue
the
civil
case,
but
if
there
is
a
criminal
case
and
a
female
conviction,
then
that
evidence
and
that
conviction
can
come
in
for
the
civil.
A
And
so
am
I
correct
that
would
essentially
prevent
the
court
from
having
to
do
a
trial
within
a
trial
to
show
that
the
sex
trafficking
occurred
when
it's
already
been
proven
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
or
I'm
sorry,
the
sex
trafficking
or
abuse
or
rape
or
any
other
kind
of
sexual
contact.
They
would
not
they
would.
This
would
alleviate
the
necessity
to
do
a
trial
within
a
trial
on
those
facts,
because
they
had
already
been
proven
a
reasonable
doubt
in
criminal
court.
Is
that
fair.
M
Robert
egglett,
madam
chairman,
partly
true
the
criminal
conviction
of
the
john
or
the
pimp,
is
conclusive
evidence,
but
in
in
the
civil
case
the
victim
would
still
have
to
prove
all
four
of
the
elements
set
forth
in
section
two,
two
of
the
statute,
the
abcd
factor,
so
there
would
still
have
to
that
that
evidence
either
constructed
actual
or
constructive
knowledge
and
that
the
that
the
person
was
employed
or
supervised,
supervised
or
had
responsibility
of
the
person
convicted
of
the
crime
etc.
A
I'm
not
sure
if
there
is
I
just
again.
I
want
to
have
a
clear
record.
So,
for
example,
let's
say
I
am
a
person
who
has
been
sex
trafficked
and
I
want
to
bring
a
suit
against
the
owner
of
the
motel.
Where
I
was
trafficked.
A
What
you're
saying
is
there
are
two
ways
to
go
about
it.
If
there
has
never
been
a
criminal
case,
then
first
I
have
to
prove
that
I
was
trafficked
there
and
then
I
have
to
meet
the
four
subsections
of
section
2,
subsection
2,
to
prove
that
the
motel
owner
had
responsibility
for
that
person
owned
to
control
the
property,
knew
or
should
have
known
and
allowed
the
views
to
continue.
That's
one
route.
A
The
other
route
is
if
that
person
was
already
convicted,
whether
it
was
last
year
last
month
or
15
years
ago,
I
can
bring
in
the
judgment
of
conviction
and
say
look.
I
was
a
victim
of
sex
trafficking.
Now
that
I've
gotten
past
that
first
hurdle.
Let
me
show
you
how
I
meet
this
second
set
of
hurdles
that
where
this
crime
occurred
was
at
this
motel
and
the
owner
was
responsible
for
the
person
controlled.
The
property
knew
should
have
known
and
allowed
it
to
continue.
A
I
have
one
more
question
for
you
both,
and
this
is
kind
of
like
a
law
school
hypothetical,
because
you
are
both
very
experienced
civil
attorneys
and
worked
on
many
many
civil
cases
which
I
have
not.
But
I
am
trying
to
imagine
another
scenario
in
which
somebody
is
responsible
for
a
venue,
a
place
and
they're
responsible
for
the
people
inside
who
may
not
be
employees
or
supervised,
and
so
my
hypothetical
that
I'm
going
to
try
to
draw
a
parallel
between.
A
M
Madam
chairman,
robert
eglin,
well,
this
bill
doesn't
really
address
sexual
harassment.
This
is
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
which
is
defined
clearly
in
the
bill,
and
I
I'm
not
a
labor
lawyer
or
employment
lawyer
as
to
whether
just
under
the
law
currently
if
the
gym
owner
would
be
have
somebody
some
liability
for
that.
If
one
of
his
customers
was
sexually
harassing
another
sexually
harassing
another
company
customer,
but
that
that's
a
different
issue
than
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation.
C
Alison
brazier
for
the
record.
I
agree
with
what
mr
eblett
said.
I
think,
maybe
to
just
help
with
the
hypothetical
little
to
make
it
more
apt
to
this
situation
would
be
if
there
was
a
gym
owner
and
they
in
your
case
it
was
a
customer
who
was,
you
know,
sexually
abusing
children
at
the
gym
repeatedly.
C
In
that
case,
I
think
it
you
know
you
would
need
to
look
at
section
two
subsection
two
to
understand.
You
know
what
did
the?
What
did
the
owner
know
or
should
have
known,
did
what
did
they
do
in
response
to
that
knowledge
or
that
activity?
So
I
think
that's
where
the
subsection
two
and
the
four
factors
come
in
to
analyze.
C
A
Okay-
and
I
think,
I'm
most
concerned
about
section
two
sub
two
sub-
a
where
the
person
the
defendant
in
this
civil
case
has
to
have
either
employed
supervised
or
had
responsibility
for
the
person
convicted
of
the
crime.
A
I
interpret
that
broadly
to
mean
that
a
property
owner
has
responsibility
for
their
customers,
their
patrons
the
people
who
frequent
the
establishment-
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
understanding
is
correct
because.
A
Because,
if
it's
not,
then
I
think
that
we
would
be
missing
some
of
the
people.
This
bill
is
intended
to
include.
M
Madam
chairman,
robert
eglitt,
again
I
think
senator
pickard
has
a
point
about
part
a
and
I
I
think
how
that
that
needs
to
be
wordsmith.
I'm
not.
I
don't
have
the
words
in
front
of
you
right
now,
but
it
really
shouldn't
be
employed
supervisor
had
responsibility
for
the
person
convicted
of
the
crime,
it
should
be
employed
supervisor
had
responsibility
for
the
person
who
knew
or
should
have
known
that
the
activity
was
going
on
at
the
the
premises
and
failed
to
take
any
steps
to
abate
or
stop
it.
M
You
know
turn
to
blind
eye
we're
always
I
was
getting
a
kick
back
and
unfortunately,
we're
just
seeing
that
that
that,
where
the
way
it
came
out
of
lcb
is
not
really
how
it
was
intended,
but
the
other
thing
I
do
want
to
stress
with
the
hypotheticals
are
being
thrown
out
there,
that
this
bill
is
directed
only
toward
minors
or
who
were
minors
at
the
time
of
the
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation,
not
adults
that
where
this
is
is
going
on
in
these
facilities.
M
A
Thank
you,
senator
pickard,
I
see
your
hand
but
with
our
short
timeline,
I'm
not
going
to
do
second
bites
at
the
apple
today.
I'll
ask
you
to
follow
up
offline.
Is
there
anybody
else
who
has
questions
for
the
presenters.
I
I
O
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
deshawn
jackson
d-a-s-h-u-n-j-a
good
afternoon
chairwoman,
tribal
and
members
I
serve
as
the
director
of
children's
safety
and
welfare
policy
with
the
children's
advocacy
alliance
and
the
children's
advocacy
alliance
supports
senate
bill
203.
We
believe
this
bill
is
extremely
important
to
the
victims
of
sexual
offenses.
O
I
A
Mr
kyle,
I'm
going
to
interrupt
you
because
I
forgot
to
make
ask
the
record
to
reflect
that.
Senator
settlemyre
has
joined
us.
He
joined
us
quite
a
while
ago,
and
I
didn't
want
to
forget
to
make
sure
that
he
was
march
present
for
this
meeting
back
to
you.
F
I
P
P
Since
2002
37
states,
the
federal
government
and
dc
have
extended
their
special
limitations.
21
jurisdictions
have
revived
their
civil
statute
limitations
and
13
jurisdictions
have
eliminated
their
stature
limitations
for
child
sexual
abuse.
This
year,
as
of
today,
30
states
have
already
introduced
special
imitation
reform.
17
of
those
are
revival
legislation.
P
So
the
national
trend
is
clear
as
to
this
epidemic
of
child
sexual
abuse
and
the
spy
has
not
fallen,
others
will
cry,
the
courts
will
be
flooded,
the
courts
have
not
been
flooded,
others
will
cry.
We
don't
do
this
for
other
torts.
Well,
these
are
not
car
crashes
slip
and,
for
all
cases,
we're
talking
about
the
assault
and
rape
of
children.
These
are
very
different
civil
wrongs
that
silence
their
victims.
P
Think
of
them
as
a
repeated
intentional
car
crashes
that
damage
and
prophesize
children
for
their
entire
lives.
Others
will
also
cry:
institutions
and
organizations
will
go
bankrupt.
Well,
bankruptcies
are
chapter
11
and
they
are
voluntary
and
they
serve
the
wrongdoer.
It
gives
them
a
new
day.
They
do
not
serve
the
victims.
Victims
become
a
number
on
a
spreadsheet,
their
voice
is
lost.
The
wrongs
of
others
are
kept
secret
as
there
is
no
discovery,
and
meanwhile
victims,
society
and
taxpayers
bear
the
financial
burden
of
cost
of
child
sexual
abuse.
Others
will
also
cry
it's
not
fair.
I
I
K
K
We
are
also
in
favor
of
adding
the
definition
of
sexual
contact
to
include
other
sexual
acts
like
unwanted
and
inappropriate
touching.
We
know
that
all
victim
survivors
experiences
of
sexual
violence
are
different
and
it
is
important
that
we
recognize
the
different
experiences
of
each
survivor
in
our
statute.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
K
K
We
very
much
appreciate
the
gravity
of
this
bill
and
the
goal
of
holding
the
people
responsible
for
these
crimes
accountable
and
the
people
who
could
have
stopped
these
crimes
if
they
were
in
a
position
to
do
so.
Unfortunately,
as
currently
drafted,
we
are
in
opposition
to
sb
203.
We
have
started
conversations
with
miss
brazier
and
mr
eglet.
As
mr
egret
mentioned,
we
had
a
constructive
chat
yesterday
and
look
forward
to
continuing
those
conversations.
K
The
crimes
described
in
this
bill
are
horrible
crimes
and
it's
important
to
hold
the
responsible
parties
to
task,
but
since
these
crimes
are
so
horrible,
it's
also
important
that
people
who
were
not
a
party
to
these
terrible
acts
are
not
unintentionally
pulled
in
as
having
been
so.
That
is
the
balance
we
are
seeking
in
our
discussions
with
the
sponsor
and
the
proponents.
I
Q
Good
afternoon,
chair
schaible
members
of
committee
senator
don
darrell
loop.
This
is
peter
krueger,
peter
p-e-t-e-r,
krueger
k-r-u-e-g-e-r,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada,
petroleum
marketers
and
convenience
store
association.
During
today's
testimony,
truck
stops
and
other
fueling
sites
have
been
singled
out
as
hotbeds
for
youth
trafficking,
and
we
don't
dispute
that.
We
as
a
an
industry
more
than
10
years
ago,
have
joined
with
the
truckers
against
trafficking
and
other
groups
to
do
things
which
I
hope
would
qualify
as
not
turning
a
blind
eye.
Q
But,
for
example,
part
of
truckers
against
programs
include
posting
signs
with
phone
numbers
to
the
national
hotlines
posting
other
kinds
of
signage.
We
use
security
patrols.
Q
I
don't
think
the
average
member
of
the
public
or
anyone
realizes
that
a
truck
stop
is
anywhere
from
10
to
20
acres
in
size
and
for
when,
when
it,
when
a
owner,
who
could
be
a
corporation
many
miles
away
or
the
management
of
of
that
daily
facility
employs
some
tactics
that
we
feel
are
going
the
right
direction,
but
whether
they
would
be
the
legal
challenge
of
turning
a
blind
eye.
Q
Q
I
I
Q
Chair
schreibel
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
paul:
enos
e-n-o-s,
I'm
the
ceo
of
the
nevada,
trucking
association,
and
we
are
speaking
today
to
oppose
senate
bill
203
and
really
it's
on
the
section
2
sub
2,
where
we
do
have
the
issues
you
know
in
terms
of
employed
or
supervised,
had
responsibility.
We
do
hire
a
lot
of
independent
contractors
and
we
do
wonder
you
know,
would
they
be
covered
under
this.
We
have
had
some
conversations
with
nja
and
are
hopeful
that
we
can
come
up
with
some
language
that
works.
Q
Q
Since
then,
we
have
trained
nationwide
through
that
program,
over
a
million
truck
drivers
to
recognize
and
report
the
signs
of
human
trafficking,
and
it's
something
that
is
very
important
to
us,
unfortunately,
nevada
because
of
the
large
number
of
visitors
that
we
have
because
of
the
transitory
nature.
We
do
end
up
as
a
hotbed
for
human
trafficking
and
it's
something
that
we
as
an
association.
We
as
an
industry
absolutely
are
in
the
in
the
fight
to
end
human
trafficking.
Q
I
I
O
Thank
you,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jon
jones
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
and
based
on
the
rules
of
the
committee.
We
are
here
in
opposition
to
sb
203,
but
we
are
very
much
in
support
of
the
attempt
of
this
bill
and
completely
support
the
idea
of
giving
child
victims
of
sexual
abuse
and
exploitation
the
space
and
time
they
need
to
recover
from
the
pain
and
trauma
afflicted
by
their
abuser
and
those
who
allow
the
abuse
to
occur.
O
We
have
reached
out
to
senator
senator
dondero
loop
and
the
nevada
justice
association
with
a
few
concerns,
and
we
appreciate
their
willingness
to
work
with
us.
We
are
requesting
some
language
and
definitional
cleanup
and
some
clarification
that
the
governmental
immunity
and
liability
provisions
located
in
nrs
chapter
41,
inclusive
apply
again.
We
are
supportive
of
the
intent
behind
the
bill
and
are
more
than
willing
to
continue
working
on
a
potential
resolution.
Thank
you.
I
N
B-R-Y-A-N-W-A-C-H-T-E-R
I
appreciate
the
senator
bringing
this
bill
forward.
It
has
been
something
that
the
retail
association
has
been
working
on.
We
are
happy
to
support
legislation
in
the
last
session
and
we've
also
been
supporting
legislation
in
the
other
house
that,
hopefully,
will
make
its
way
to
you
in
order
to
combat
this
horrific
problem.
N
We
do
believe
that
there
needs
to
be
some
clarification
in
the
language
and
we
were
excited
to
note
that
during
the
hearing
we
believe
that
became
evident,
and
so
we
are
going
to
be
looking
for
that
new
language.
You
know,
we
believe
that
this
is
a
repugnant
act
and
we
certainly
don't
support
anyone
who
engages
in
it.
I
O
Hi,
my
name
is
chris
wakefield
c
h,
r.
I
s
w
a
k,
e
f,
I
e
l
d,
I'm
a
researcher
at
unlv
who's
been
working
on
sex
defense
policy
issues,
both
in
nevada
and
across
the
country.
For
the
past
five
years,
I've
provided
a
more
detailed
exhibit,
which
I
encourage
the
committee
to
review
about
this
law.
Sb203
looks
like
a
bill
that
would
do
a
public
good
by
expanding
the
ability
of
victims
to
pursue
civil
damages
in
practice.
O
Sbo3
sb203
excuse
me
is
based
more
on
dramatic
media
stories
than
on
the
majority
of
sex
offenses.
It
will
apply
to
which
has
gone
unaddressed
by
this
committee
today.
To
be
clear,
the
research
shows
that
these
policies
will
not
do
anything
to
defer
human
trafficking
or
sex
offenses.
Instead,
this
law
will
disproportionately
harm
black
men
in
nevada,
who
are
more
likely
to
be
punished
for
sex,
offenses
and
economically
destabilize
sex
offenders.
O
Take
one
of
my
participants:
andy
a
black
man
in
his
60s,
who
would
be
a
common
target
for
this
law
after
andy's
conviction,
he
couldn't
return
to
his
previous
job
and
he
ended
up
working
a
landscaping
job
for
close
to
minimum
wage
for
many
years
now.
Most
of
his
income
is
social
security
and
he
cannot
work.
He
has
already
lost
his
wife,
his
family
friends,
home
career
and
the
ability
to
engage
with
the
community.
O
If,
if
sb
203
is
passed,
he
will
not
have
the
funds
to
defend
himself,
nor
could
he
pay
for
damages
if
he
wants
to,
he
will
likely
end
up
another
sex
offender
on
the
street,
where
we
cannot
track
him.
Ten
percent
of
the
registry
is
already
housing,
unstable
or
homeless.
A
number
we
can't
afford
to
increase
if
the
members
of
this
committee
have
any
investment
in
the
criminal
justice
reform
that
so
many
of
our
in
our
state
took
to
the
streets
to
fight
for
this
year.
O
I
I
R
I
am
here
to
speak
in
opposition
emphasis
on
tepid
opposition
because
we
believe
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
is
spot
on
and
applaud,
senator
donderolu
for
bringing
it
forward.
I
know
that
you
all
are
very
pinched
for
time,
so
I
believe
our
concerns
with
respect
to
the
bill,
namely
in
section
one
subsection
two
and
some
of
the
language
in
there.
That
needs
to
be
massaged,
as
alluded
to
by
mr
eglet.
R
Those
have
been
covered
at
length
again,
thank
you
to
senator
john
darrell
loop
and
then
also
to
kaelin
gardavani
for
spending
some
time
with
me
this
morning
on
the
bill
as
well.
Thank
you.
I
R
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
paul
morakkin
m-o-r-a-d
k-h-a-n,
with
the
vegas
chamber
first
we'd
like
to
thank
the
bill's
sponsor
for
bringing
the
bill
forward.
Please
note
that
we
do
not
have
any
issue
with
attend
the
bill
and
condone,
of
course,
these
type
of
activities.
I
like
to
reiterate
the
comments
made
by
several
of
my
colleagues.
There
are
concerns
about
clarifying
some
of
the
language
that
has
been
discussed
today.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
This
afternoon,
chair,
hey.
I
O
What
we
are
concerned
with
in
this
spill
is
the
complete
elimination
of
a
statute
of
limitations
and
the
revival
of
claims
after
the
time
to
file
them
has
ended.
Court
law
often
deals
with
serious
injuries
that
dramatically
change
a
person's
life.
A
medication
may
have
caused
a
birth
defect.
A
person
who's
diagnosed
with
cancer
may
attribute
it
to
a
consumer
product
or
environmental
contamination.
O
O
But
if
nevada
law
eliminates
the
statute
of
limitations
here
and
revised
time
board
claims,
you
can
expect
others
to
seek
similar
treatment,
and
we
are
starting
to
see
that
for
these
reasons,
as
well
as
constitutional
concerns,
most
state
legislatures
have
rejected
similar
proposals
and
instead
adopted
longer
periods
that
apply
effectively,
as
nevada
has
done.
In
the
past,
few
states
have
completely
eliminated
their
statute
of
limitations
and,
while
about
one-third
of
states
have
revised
time
bar
claims,
many
of
these
laws
have
significant
constraints
on
the
types
of
claims
that
are
revived.
O
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much,
mr
kyle,
I'm
at
the
risk
of
closing
the
barn
door
after
the
horse
has
already
fled.
I
do
want
to
let
everybody
who's
been
calling
in
to
testify
everybody's
watching.
This
meeting
know
that
on
this
nsi,
we
do
not
have
rules
about
testifying
in
opposition.
A
If
you
have
a
problem
with
one
part
of
the
bill
or
concern
about
one
part
of
the
bill,
we
do
leave
it
up
to
our
our
individual
testifiers
or
witnesses
to
determine
where
they
best
fit,
if
that's
neutral
or
opposition,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
guys
know
that
moving
forward
with
that,
we
will
close
opposition
testimony
and
we
will
move
on
to
neutral
testimony
on
sb203.
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
help,
mr
kyle,
and
thank
you
to
everybody
who
took
the
time
out
of
their
day
to
present
this
bill
answer.
Questions
on
this
bill
ask
questions
about
this
bill
and
to
call
in
about
this
bill
with
that.
Would
the
presenters
like
to
make
any
final
comments
respond
to
any
of
the
the
testimony.
M
But
thank
you
senator,
madam
chairman.
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
actually
point
out
that
I
appreciate
senator
pickard's
sharp
legal
eye
and
on
the
problem
with
the
one
section,
the
vagueness
of
it,
and
so
we
will
work
with
that
and
and
again
we
we're
up
obviously
willing
to
to
work
with
the
groups
who
have
some
concern
to
try
to
address
their
concerns
with
them
offline.
We
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
L
Chair
scheible,
to
close,
I
would
just
say
that
the
survivors
of
child
sex
abuse
and
exploitation
deserve
a
civil
form
to
pursue
their
abusers
and
those
allowed
that
to
abuse
and
to
exploit
them,
and
we
know
that
there
will
be
some
amendments
that
are
offered
to
this
bill
and
we
thank
all
of
those
involved,
and
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
A
Thank
you
senator
don
daryl
loop
and
everybody
else.
With
that.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
sb
203
and,
as
always,
our
presenters
are
and
our
guest
senators
are
welcome
to
stay
with
us
for
the
rest
of
the
meeting
or
move
on
to
other
important
tasks
of
the
day,
and
we
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
sb223
senator
harris.
D
All
right
good
afternoon,
cher
scheibel
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
dallas
harris
and
I
represent
senate
district
11
in
the
southwest
part
of
clark
county.
It's
my
pleasure
to
present
senate
bill
223
to
you
today,
senate
bill
223
codifies
a
defendant's
right
to
be
judged
by
a
jury
of
their
peers
during
the
process
of
jury.
D
D
The
right
to
a
trial
arbitrated
by
a
jury
of
one's
peers
cannot
be
truly
realized
without
protections
from
discrimination.
During
the
process
of
jury
selection,
preventing
individuals
from
participating
in
jury
simply
because
of
their
sexual
orientation
or
gender
identity
or
race
infringes
on
the
fundamental
right
to
an
impartial
jury
and
to
the
reciprocal
right
to
jury
service.
D
These
protections
are
not
a
new
idea;
they
just
need
to
be
codified
to
be
preserved
and
for
the
legal
eyes
on
the
judiciary
committee,
I
have
a
couple
of
legal
citations,
I'd
like
to
refer
you
to
batson
b
kentucky,
of
course,
that
is
the
seminal
case
that
protects
rape.
Race-Based
groups
see
jebv,
alabama
and
watsonv
state
which
protects
gender-based
groups.
D
A
Committee,
thank
you.
Senator
harris
I'll
go
to
other
members
of
the
committee.
First
senator
pickard.
H
Hey
man,
I'm
chair,
I
I
was
actually
under
the
impression
this
was
already
the
state
of
the
law,
but
my
concern
is
only
that
is
the
intent
to
remove
from
the
ability
of
a
prosecutor
or
defense
counsel
to
remove
people
from
a
jury
based
on
any
particular
attitudes.
H
Strike
jurors
because
they
have
attitudes
that
might
not
align
well
with
their
theory
of
the
case.
H
Argue
about
who
has
then
mute
button,
and
obviously
you
have
the
master
one,
but
not
respect,
though
I
was
just
kind
of
curious
as
being
someone
who
doesn't
practice
law
on
this
committee.
How
do
you
tell
that?
How
I
mean
does
the
can
they
do
a
challenge
to
a
particular
person
on
a
jury
trial?
How
are
you
going
to
know
that
they
decided
that
they
felt
they'd
have
a
better
time
with
a
completely
female
jury
versus
a
completely
male
jury?
How
how
do
you
know
that
that
was
in
their
calculus
when
picking.
D
Well
sanders
settlemeyer
I'll,
give
it
a
shot.
You
know
you
generally
won't
know,
although
what
it
would
be
incumbent
upon
one
of
the
attorneys
to
make
a
challenge
based
upon
that
and
then
the
judge
would
make
a
factual
determination.
O
H
H
D
Cinder
cinema
I'll
give
a
quick
answer,
and
I
don't
know
tara
scheibel
has
any
additional
insights
as
she
practices
in
the
courtroom.
Much
more
than
I
do.
You
know
senator
sediment
often
you're
going
to
want
to
do
something
like
that.
Maybe
stack
with
mothers,
if
you
can
this
bill,
would
not
affect
your
ability
to
try
and
pick
the
best
jury
in
that
way
for
your
client,
and
so
you
know
I
I
I
don't
see
this
necessarily
imposing
or
changing
that
that
ability
at
all.
H
H
A
All
right
senator
harris.
I
also
have
a
couple
of
questions.
A
A
You
are
not
using
either
peremptory
or
for-cause,
challenges
to
systematically
remove
people
from
the
jury
based
on
their
sexual
orientation
or
gender
identity
or
age
or
physical
disability
or
race
or
religion.
That
is
correct.
A
And
is
there
a
companion,
I
don't
know
if
statute
is
the
right
word
or
policy
that
would
address
that
front,
end
kind
of
de
facto
discrimination
and
sorry,
when
I
say
front
end,
I
mean
the
composition
of
the
wardir.
How
do
we
ensure
that
when
I,
as
a
prosecutor,
walk
into
a
room
to
start
picking
my
jury,
it's
not
already,
you
know
how
do
we
ensure
that
it's
reflective
of
the
community
to
start
with.
D
And
cher
scheibel
you're
bringing
up
a
really
important
point
and
one
that
I
attempted
I
was
thinking
about
attempting
to
address
in
this
legislation.
This
would
probably
have
to
reflect
some
changes
in
nrs
6.045
and
I
could
not
quite
get
there,
but
you
are
correct.
We
need
to
worry
about
both
sides
of
the
issue.
A
And
my
last
question,
I
think,
is
about
how
this
bill
would
be
enforced
in
reality
because,
generally
with
a
batson
challenge
or
a
similar
discriminatory
challenge,
it
is
the
defendant
who
brings
the
issue
first.
They
have
to
bring
it
during
the
jury
trial
and
then
they
have
to
bring
it
again
on
appeal
and
explain
how
not
only
was
the
striking
observers
discriminatory,
but
also
how
that
prejudiced
the
defendant.
A
So
in
this
case,
would
it
still
have
to
be
criminal
defendants
who
were
convicted
overturning
their
convictions
by
citing
to
the
statute,
or
does
this
create
a
civil
liability,
or
does
this
create
a
new
class
of
prosecutorial
misconduct
or
and
or
would
this
also
create?
You
know
some
kind
of
ethical
violation
for
a
defense
attorney
who
engages
in
discriminatory
jury
selection
practices.
D
So
I
I
think
your
your
first
point.
Your
last
point
are
probably
the
most
the
closest
I
envisioned
this
working
in
the
similar
way
that
bats
and
challenges
currently
work.
Today,
on
your
last
point,
I
could
imagine
some
creative
lawyer
drafting
a
rule
11
motion
for
sanctions
based
upon
violation
of
the
statute,
if
it's
blatant
and
if
so
rises
to
some
ethical
level,
as
possibly
the
violation
of
any
other
statute
by
a
lawyer
might
result
in.
A
So,
just
to
clarify
that
means
that
if
I
am
kicked
from
and
I
say,
kicked
if
a
preemptory
challenge
or
a
forecast
challenge
is
used
to
remove
me
from
a
potential
jury
pool.
This
does
not
give
me
the
right
to
sue
the
judge.
The
prosecutor,
the
defense
attorney,
who
exercised
the
peremptory
challenge
on
the
basis
of
having
been
discriminated
against.
It
does
not.
A
So,
going
back
to
my
example,
if
I
was
the
person
who
was
remote
from
the
jury
either
for
cause
or
through
parentary
challenge,
and
then
the
I
mean
say
it's
a
civil
case
and
the
plaintiff
in
the
case
lost,
and
they
want
to
say
well.
The
reason
that
we
lost
is
that
the
defense
counsel
struck
all
the
women
from
the
jury.
D
That
is
correct,
no
private
action
for
the
juror
for
being
for
having
a
preemptory
challenge
used
against
them,
only
designed
to
protect
the
rights
of
the
alleged
person
and
again
by
the
this,
is
part
of
the
reason
why
you
see
section
one
subsection,
three
paragraph
a
or
I'm
sorry,
paragraph
b.
This
is
not
designed
to
grant
someone
a
absolute
right
to
serve
on
a
jury
or
create
any
rights
that
people
don't
already
have.
G
Thanks,
madam
chair,
just
a
quick
question:
what
problem
are
we
trying
to
solve
here?
I
mean
right
now.
Obviously
I
think
you
practice
law,
primarily
in
clark
county.
The
defendant's
attorney
obviously
would
want
to
do
anything
everything
possible
to
get
people
on
the
jury
favorable
to
them.
Therefore,
the
problem,
as
I
see
this,
must
be
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office.
G
Is
there
a
problem
with
the
way
they're
currently
selecting?
I
can't
help
but
note
that
versus
everybody
that
I've
seen
at
the
legislative
level
at
least
have
been
white.
Is
there
a
problem
in
the
prosecution
side
in
clark
county
with
jury
selection,
and
is
that
what
you're
going
targeting
with
this
bill.
D
Senator
hansen-
I
I'll
I'll,
say
this:
both
prosecutors
and
and
defense
attorneys
use
preemptory
challenges,
and
so
both
sides
have
an
equal
opportunity
to
say
that
a
juror
was
struck
unfairly
under
case
law.
What
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
put
statutory
protections
in
place
that
make
it
clear
that
in
the
state
of
nevada,
you
cannot
discriminate
based
upon
these
factors.
A
All
right
are
there
any
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
who
have
not
asked
any
questions,
yet
I
am
not
seeing
any
so
with
that.
We
will
conclude
the
presentation
portion
and
move
on
to
testimony
and
support
of
sb223.
I
I
O
O
That
is
not
addressed
in
this
bill,
but
it
should
probably
be
addressed
because
we
do
have
a
problem
and
although
assemblyman
sumo
tried
to
fix
it
with
getting
information
from
dieter,
the
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation
is
my
understanding
that
that
that
information
is
not
being
turned
over
to
make
more
diverse
jury
pools
to
senator
hanson's
point.
Your
question
is
right
on
target.
O
Neither
senator
schaible
or
senator
canozzaro
is
guilty
of
this,
but
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
as
a
whole
has
a
long
and
tortured
history
of
violating
baton
and
getting
serious
cases
reversed
because
of
their
problems
with
that
issue,
and
I
can
get
those
cases
and
list
to
you
in
the
future.
So
we
do
thank
senator
harris
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
That
concludes
my
testimony.
I
J
Hello,
my
name
is
andre
wade
a-n-d-r-e-w-a-d-e.
Thank
you,
chair,
schaible,
vice
chair,
who,
I
believe,
is
still
not
there.
J
I'm
a
member
of
the
community
committee
here
in
support
of
sc
223,
and
I
like
to
just
note
that
often
lgbtq
folks
are
discriminated
against
for
their
actual
or
perceived
identity,
and
so
we
have
to
be
careful
that
we
don't
assume
that,
just
because
someone
doesn't
know
that
someone
specifically
is
from
the
lgbtq
community
that
they
won't
be
discriminated
against,
but
with
these
efforts
across
the
board
to
increase
data
collection
and
ask
people
their
sexual
orientation
and
gender
identity
to
better
know,
disparities
people
are
a
lot
more
willing
to
state
their
sexual
orientation,
gender
identity.
J
I
I
I
R
Hello
and
thank
you
chair,
schaible
and
committee
members-
this
is
nick
schipec
and
I
c-k-s-h-e-p-a-c-k
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
first
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
bringing
forth
this
important
bill.
We
want
to
echo
the
comments
of
those
who
spoke
before
every
defendant
in
state
and
federal
court
alike.
Has
the
right
to
be
tried
by
an
impartial
jury
that
represents
a
cross
section
of
the
community
and
does
not
intentionally
exclude
persons
of
the
dependence
on
race,
religion,
sex,
sexual
orientation,
gender
identity
or
expression,
national
origin,
age
or
physical
disability.
R
The
aclu
has
been
active
in
ensuring
fair
and
diverse
jury
since
the
early
1960s.
This
bill
is
one
more
positive
step
in
that
direction,
while
bastion
v
kentucky
offers
some
protections
from
discriminatory,
jury
selection,
stronger
protections
and
state
statutes
will
help
to
ensure
more
fair
juries.
We
urge
you
to
support
this
important
legislation
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
I
K
K
I
K
Good
afternoon
cherish
scheible
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary.
This
is
kendra
burchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a
v-e-r-t-s-c-h-y,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
We
want
to
thank
senator
harris
for
bringing
forward
this
bill
to
start
the
conversation
about
improving
our
jury
system.
As
you
heard
mr
pirro
mentioned,
this
is
just
one
step
that
we
need
to
make
in
order
to
ensure
that
our
jury
trials
are
consisting
of
individuals
who
make
up
a
fair
cross
section
of
our
communities
that
are
fair,
unbiased
and
truly
are
a
jury
of
our
peers.
K
I
I
I
P
L-I-S-A-R-A-S-M-U-S-S-E-N,
I'm
sorry.
I
seem
to
be
having
connection
problems
this
afternoon
and
my
earlier
attempt
to
speak
didn't
work.
I
am
testifying
on
behalf
of
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice
this
afternoon
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
and
senator
harris
nacj
supports
the
bill
with
the
proposed
amendment.
P
I
I
think
I
would
say
ditto
in
response
to
some
of
the
comments
from
mr
pirro
earlier
in
in
response
to
senator
hansen's
questions.
There
are
problems
with
jury
selection.
There
are
problems
with
discrimination
and
that
is
not
to
accuse
senator
scheible
or
senator
canazzaro
of
any
of
that.
But
there
are
problems
and
that's
the
reality,
and
there
are
numerous
cases
that
have
been
reversed
by
the
nevada
supreme
court.
I
think
that
the
bill
is
a
good
step
toward
correcting
some
of
those
problems.
P
I
I
O
Hello,
my
name
is
david
bohr,
d-a-b-I-d
b-o-e-h-r-e-r,
I'm
with
the
nevada
justice
association,
and
we
have
a
neutral
stance
right
now.
We
appreciate
all
the
work
that
senator
harris
is
trying
to
achieve
and
making
sure
that
our
juries
are
representative
of
our
population
and
have
diverse
ideas
and
thoughts
they
can
bring
to
the
legislature.
We
also
appreciate
her
working
with
us
to
make
sure
the
language
works
in
practice
and
look
forward
to
working
with
her
more
for
the
language,
be
just
right,
and
let
me
talk
about
a
little
bit.
O
We
we're
working
with
senator
harris
closely
trying
to
get
it
so
that
this
does
not
infringe
upon
the
attorney's
right
to
pick
the
right
jury
for
their
case,
and
I
think
senator
zlatan
meyer
and
senator
picker
both
picked
up
on
that
in
their
comments,
and
we
are
working
closely
with
senator
harris
to
try
to
make
this
not
block
your
ability
to
try
your
case
as
you
see
right.
So
at
this
time
we
are
working
with
her
and
we
stand
with
neutral
position.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
A
D
Yes,
just
very
quickly
cher
scheibel.
Thank
you.
You
know,
I
think
you
hit
on
an
important
point,
and
that
is
something
that
I
am
either
going
to
attempt
to
tackle
next
session,
because
I
think
I
need
to
have
a
lot
of
discussions
about
the
best
way
to
ensure
that
our
jury
pool
itself
is
diverse
or
if
I
can
pull
off
a
miracle,
maybe
amend
over
on
the
assembly
side
to
try
and
address
that.
D
But
that
is
another
issue.
This
is
just
one
piece
and
I
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
hear
the
bill
today.
Thank
you.
A
I
I
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
again
for
your
help,
mr
kyle,
thank
you
to
all
of
our
committee
members
for
a
very
productive
set
of
hearings
today
on
three
different
bills.
We
will
be
back
again
tomorrow
with
two
additional
bills
to
here,
and
I
want
to
remind
you
once
again
that
we
will
be
having
our
first
friday
meeting
this
friday,
so
don't
plan
anything
between
1
and
3
30,
and
we
are
now
adjourned.